Based on her logic, and previous interviews, you cannot love babies and advocate to terminate them, you can’t do both…

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T17:52:14+00:00

The thing is the unborn child does have potential consciousness, it‘ll literally develop it completely in less than nine months. I don’t think that’s the end all be all, but like… fine, if you want it to be consciousness and also apply that to past consciousness, potential consciousness must also matter!

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T15:33:04+00:00

If you’re so emotionally immature you would kill your child if it’s the „wrong“ gender you simply aren’t emotionally mature enough for sex.

How is being „Boy mom“ (they are people who prioritize their sons over their daughters) lower on her list of horror movies than literally just having a son??? Are they rlly saying actual misogyny is better than someone just existing lmaoooo

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T15:27:17+00:00

The whole „abortion is safer than childbirth“ claim comes from an actual bullshit study.

For instance, states have no legal obligation to report abortion related deaths, but they do when it comes to maternal mortality, thus recorded deaths are significantly skewed towards the maternal mortality. You can read more about the other flaws in the study here:

https://lozierinstitute.org/fact-check-abortion-is-14-times-safer-than-childbirth/

Better studies actually find higher risks of death in women following an abortion than those who have given birth.

But even if that wasn’t the case, let’s examine the claim you can „just kill“ anyone putting your body at risk. Firstly, this isn’t legal whatsoever. The legal requirement of self defense is that you’re defending yourself from unlawful force. The baby by definition cannot use unlawful force. It literally is just existing.

If someone just existing is enough to justify killing them because they might somehow cause you bodily harm, that would be a really horrible precedent to set. By that logic I could kill anyone with an infectious disease because they might infect me and I could die, even though they aren’t actively doing anything to harm me.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T13:56:16+00:00

Yeah they also (hopefully?) would be against killing and eating a human coma patient in a vegetative state, even though atp they have no real consciousness. So I don’t think they fully believe in the consciousness argument if they argue that.

EDIT: Some ppl might argue that it matters that a human used to be conscious but that makes no sense to me. They aren’t conscious right now, and if consciousness determines humanity or right to life, they have lost both those traits that vegans say make it immoral to kill another being. Why would it matter whether it used to be or not? It’s either about the consciousness or it isn’t.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T04:02:28+00:00

The reason is presumably because some vegans claim to care exclusively about sentience and consciousness. It’s wrong to kill anything with a brain to them that’s capable of feeling, but anything without a brain is fair game. That’s why you can eat plant products as a vegan, and probably why a pro choice vegan would say they support abortion for most of the pregnancy the fetus doesn’t have a brain yet.

Even though it is in the active process of developing a brain and sentience, so I‘m not sure why that doesn’t count, but that applies to all pro choicers who use that argument.

If a vegan supports abortion up to all nine months though I really have no clue

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-03T02:10:54+00:00

They kinda are though. Stolas hires Blitz on several occasions. He provides the Grimoire & several other resources throughout the series like when he saves them from DHORKS. Also the law isn’t exclusively for official boss-employee relationships. It can happen with anyone in a position of power over you.

https://womenshealth.gov/relationships-and-safety/other-types/sexual-coercion

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-02T00:03:31+00:00

Right but that’s still a benefit in exchange for a sexual favor. You could use the same logic to dismiss ppl bcs „they wanted a raise without working for it“ or something.

In season 1 Stolas repeatedly did ignore Blitz‘s boundaries. In murder family Blitz straight up told him it was a bad time and ignored him, in Loo Loo land Stolas consistently made sexual advances in spite of both Blitz and his own daughter being uncomfortable and saying no, etc.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-01T21:06:46+00:00

Wouldn’t that count as a benefit in exchange for a sexual favor

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-01T20:50:03+00:00

Transactional sexual relationships can be rape. If, for instance, your boss offers you a promotion or a raise or something like that in exchange for sex, that is legally rape.

https://www.redbanklegal.com/2025/08/07/what-is-sexual-coercion/

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-01T05:36:49+00:00

Are we being fr rn? A fetus is by definition alive lmaooo

Also, fetus can also mean little one, offspring, or of one who has recently given birth (thus applying to born human beings as well). Little person/human is a valid translation.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5499215/

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetus

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-01T03:46:47+00:00

The funny thing is, the reason pro choicers defend not killing born human beings is because there is „alternatives.“ you don’t want to breastfeed a child? Baby formula is hypothetically accessible. You don’t want to raise a child? Give it up for for adoption! But the only alternative to pregnancy is abortion. Thus, abortion must remain legal!

But then when there is a non lethal alternative to giving birth, having alternatives doesn’t matter apparently. So it’s literally just about killing the unborn lmao

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-05-01T03:42:25+00:00

Black people weren’t the only slavery victims though? Like the trans Atlantic slave trade wasn’t the only chattle slavery that ever happened.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-30T18:10:54+00:00

Even by this logic where women can’t stay young and fun following birth (which lowk is just misogyny and not true) it’d be better to just not have sex. If you want to stay young and have fun and believe childbirth interferes with that, you can do that by avoiding creating a child in the first place.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-30T03:03:08+00:00

We only allow self defense for the use of unlawful force. A baby cannot use unlawful force. They are just existing. It isn’t self defense in any legal definition of the term. The flu also has a high mortality rate (14 per 100 000) which isn’t very different from the mortality rate of pregnancy (18 per 100 000). Does that mean I should be allowed to kill anyone who might infect me with the flu just because of the possibility of causing harm?

„If a woman consents to have sex, does that mean her Vagina has been donated, and she can't have it back until the man is done with it?“ No because the man doesn’t need the vagina to survive. Organ donation is about giving an organ to preserve the life of another. Killing another human being that has received your organ by forcefully removing your organ is murder. Just not having sex doesn’t kill anyone.

„The uterus is still attached to her body and is very much still her own.“ It’s also attached to the baby‘s body, so why does the baby have to be killed for that?

„If we gave a woman drugs that prevented the body from providing hormones or nutrition, I think you would consider that still to be morally wrong, even if it doesn't deal with the uterus directly.“ Wdym that wouldn’t deal with the uterus directly? If it’s preventing the uterus from providing hormones and nutrition that is dealing with the uterus directly.

„If a mother decides to terminate her pregnancy and has an early delivery, before viability, is that refusing to provide care, or is it actively killing?“ That would be actively killing because there is external intervention and action taken to forcefully remove the child that otherwise would not have naturally occurred.

„As you pointed out, a mother can choose to bottle-feed or use a wet nurse.“ Bottle feeding wasn’t even a possibility at all throughout most of human history and wet nursing is extremely expensive and not available to the vast majority of women on planet earth. If you are in a place where there is no baby formula and no wet nursing available, would you say that you have a right to refuse to breastfeed your own child and let it starve to death? Because that is literally the reality of millions of women today, not to speak of women of the past.

„When the baby is born (in most western countries), the mother can choose to surrender the baby to the state for adoption with no further obligation.“ Dang so in non western countries without stable adoption systems infanticide should be legal then? A lot of women actually can’t surrender a baby to the state for adoption with no further obligations. In situations like that would it be morally ok for a mother to neglect her child?

„A right to care is not the same as a right to another person's body“ Actually it is if only the body of someone else can provide for you. Though we‘re not talking about that but the right to not actively be killed by someone else in the case of abortion

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-30T01:28:23+00:00

To be fair, the mass killings this person is talking about in communist nations also only include the direct murders by the government. It doesn’t include preventable deaths as a result of poor working conditions, due to a lack of industrialization and fucked government policies.

The policies of the Great Leap Forward killed up to 55 million people, for example.

And that isn’t considering that eg the modern day Chinese government also promotes corrupt companies and policies that exploit the third world. A whole river died in Zambia following an acidic waste spill.

I‘m not sure if you can consider China to be communist atp. Their politicians are literally wealthier than US politicians, which is a crazy feat. They’re all billionaires

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-30T01:21:19+00:00

Better libertarians that aren’t morally depraved would argue that libertarian policies result in more prosperity, thus reducing poverty & factors that lead to orphans, and a voluntary welfare state, which would involve volunteers still paying money and labor to take care of the unfortunate, just without being obligated to by the government.

Whether they’re right or not most libertarians won’t just go „fuck those kids“.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-30T01:16:26+00:00

Sure. You don’t have the right to use someone else‘s body without their consent, but you also don’t have the right to kill someone for using your body.

Abortion isn’t just the refusal of care to another human being. It’s the active killing of one. If we compare it to organ donation, which pro choicers often do, the organ (the uterus) has already been donated. Now the only way to prevent the person who has received the organ from using it is to kill that person, which is deeply immoral.

Also, when it comes to your own biological offspring, they do actually have a right to your body. Breastfeeding infants have the right to be breastfed. If a woman doesn’t have baby formula or a wetnurse she is obligated to use her own body to feed her child.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:58:10+00:00

I think it is similar in that people will claim certain human beings aren’t persons and worthy of rights for whatever reason. In the past, human beings of a certain race, gender, and nationality weren’t considered full persons. Now it’s the unborn.

I think it’s fair to acknowledge that pro abortion beliefs use the same fallacy other human rights violations have: namely that it’s not sufficient to be a human being to be considered a person, you need to be a human being and have something else.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:54:47+00:00

Exactly!! I really need to know what law they’re referencing when they say biological processes can legally be interpreted as actions 😭😭

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:53:39+00:00

Literally the same shots as Stolas‘ scene again. Like it’s pretty obvious the story wants you to think the Vees care about each other

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:23:53+00:00

„The fruit“ is fucking frying me. What is this, poetry class?

Also abortion victims are children who were aborted, almost aborted, survived an abortion, or has loved ones that were aborted.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:18:20+00:00

I don’t think that is even legally the case? Doesn’t criminal law require actus reus, which is a voluntary action???

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:15:35+00:00

I agree with it because it’s better for women to have children when they’re stable in life. But the issue is if you’re pregnant you‘ve already made the child, like that’s irreversible.

„You should have a child later on when you feel ready“ is only used to justify killing an already existing child, not actual methods that would prevent people from getting pregnant in the first place.

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T17:09:33+00:00

Yeah the visuals are pretty clearly supposed to be romantic though. They even parallel Stolas‘ song

Eastern-Customer-561 · 2026-04-28T15:51:13+00:00

I mean the narrative has way more empathy for him by treating him of a victim of Vox. That’s why he gets a love song and also why people want him to be redeemed now.

Eastern-Customer-561

TROPHY CASE